"Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists."
http://oism.org/pproject/Define scientist. I am a scientist, but an immunologist, not a climate scientist. If I sign the petition (I wouldn't) then would I count on your list? My opinion on climate science is no more valid than anyone elses who has not studied the subject...
Even if you aren't sure that CO2 is a bad thing, or that humans are causing the rise in CO2, the safer bet would be not to continue using fossil fuels, in case the consequences are actually what the majority of climate scientists think they will be.
An example I use is: I have never been in a car that has run out of petrol/gas. Therefore I think that cars do not actually need petrol/gas to run. Lots of people tell me that they do, but that is not the case in my experience. Should I fill up my car with petrol before driving across death valley? If I am right, then all good. If I am wrong and don't fill up, I die. If I fill up my car as the majority say I should, it doesn't matter who is right, I will be fine. I would fill up my car, better safe than sorry.